JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ram Jas Singh against his conviction and sentence under section 302 I.P.C. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar on 13-8-1974. The appellant was charged for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of one Madho Singh in village Hasampur, police station Patan, District Sikar on January 17, 1974. The co-accused Jagmal Singh was also tried under section 302/34 I.P.C. for the same murder. Jagmal Singh, however, was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar giving him the benefit of doubt. 2. The prosecution story as revealed during investigation and trial in brief is as follows: As stated by Ishwar Singh P.W. 2 the incident was occasioned owing to previous enmtiy between the deceased and the accused. The agricultural fields of Jagmal Singh and Madho Singh are adjacent. Madho Singh's daughters bad gone to the field to collect leaves. There Jagmal Singb also came and he took exception to the children causing damage in the field and complained to Madho Singh. Madho Singh and his son Mahavir Singh and Jagmal Singh had heated exchanges and abuses. This incident had happened on the same day at about 4 p. m. Madho Singh informed Iswar Singh about this incident. Besides this about 13-14 years before this incident Jagmal Singh had fractured the hand of Madho Singh. Thus there was enmity between the accused and Madho Singh. On the day of occurrence i.e. on 17-1-1974, Madho Singh since deceased, was taking dinner at his house in village Hasampur. Accused Jagmal Singh (since acquitted) and appellant Ramjas Singh aimed with lathis called Madho Singh to come out of his house. Madho Singh came out of his house at their call. Jagmal Singh caught hold of him by his hand and the appellant dealt one lathi blow on his head, as a result of which Madho SiDgh fell down. He was taken to the Government hospital at Hasampur but as his condition was serious and the medical facilities at Hasampur could not cope with the situation, he was ultimately taken to the S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur, where he was admitted as an indoor patient and later on expired on 25-1-1974. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged at the police station Patan on 24-1-1974 by Jai Singh s/o Ishwar Singh, nephew of Madho Singh. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged at the police station Patan on 24-1-1974 by Jai Singh s/o Ishwar Singh, nephew of Madho Singh. As Madho Singh died on 25-1-1974. Police Station Patan was informed of his death on 26-1-1974, and the case was registered against the appellant and Jagmal Singh under section 302 and 302/34 I.P.C.The autopsy on the dead body of Madho Singh was conducted by Dr. Narendra Mehta P. W. 7. He found one injury i. e. Haematoma all over the forehead with swelling of both the lids of eyes with echymosis. There were multifractures of the frontal bone right and left parietal bone and left temporal bone and right side of occipital bone. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex. P. 8. In the opinion of Dr. Narendra Mehta the cause of death of Madho Singh was shock and coma ss a result of injury to the brain as mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex. P. 8. Dr. Mehta had earlier examined the patient on 18-1-1974 at 10 a. m. and the injury was also x-rayed by Dr. Ratanlal P. W. 11 on 18-1-1974 which revealed fractures of right frontoparietal region. Dr. Ratanlal was examined by the prosecution as P. W. 11 and Dr. Narendra Mehta was examined as P. W. 7. Inquest memo of the dead body of Madho Singh was prepared by Ramhet, Head Constable, Police outpost Lal Kothi, Jaipur under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Ramhet has examined as P. W. 12. During the course of investigation the accused were arrested on 26-1-1974 by Brij Vallabh Pareek, S. H. O. Patan. He also inspected the spot and prepared a site plan. While in police custody, Ramjas Singh appellant furnished information to get recovered the weapon of offence, lathi from his house. This information was reduced in writing which is Ex. P. 18. In pursuance of this information lathi was got recovered by the accused at his instance for which recovery memo was prepared which is Ex. P. 7 3. After necessary investigation the appellant and co-accused Jagmal Singh were challenged in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Neem-ka-thana, who after inquiry, committed the accused to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. P. 7 3. After necessary investigation the appellant and co-accused Jagmal Singh were challenged in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Neem-ka-thana, who after inquiry, committed the accused to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. Rarojas Singh appellant was charged for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. while the accused Jagmal Singh was charged under section 302/34 I.P.C. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Various documents Ex. P. 1 to Ex. 19 were also produced. The accused denied their complicity in the crime, Jagmal Singh pleaded that due to previous enmity he had been falsely implicated in the case. Ramjas Singh appellant pleaded alibi that at the time of incident he had gone to his father-in-law's place. He has also pleaded that there was previous enmity with some of the main prosecution witnesses. No witness, in defence was examined by the accused. After trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Jagmal Singh and convicted the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence, the appeal. 5. P. W. 1 Jai Singh is the person who lodged the report Ex. P. 1 at the police station, Patan. He is not an eye-witness of the incident. On the alleged day of incident he was out of village Khohara and when he returned he was informed that his uncle Madho Singh has been taken to Hospital, Jaipur. He went to Jaipur and found him in a precarious condition. He returned to Hasampur to inform bis aunt about the condition of Madho Singh and then went back to Jaipur. At the instance of Ishwar Singh P. W. 2, report Ex. P. 1 was scribed by one Amar Singh at the police station. P. W. 2 Ishwar Singh is said to be an eye-witness of the occurrence, who at relevant hour was at the scene of occurrence. According to him Ramjas Singh and Jagmal Singh came in the evening to the house of Madho Singh and called him out of his house. When Madho Singh came to his house and the accused Jagmal Singh exhorted the appellant to murder Madho Singh. Thereupon the appellant inflicted one lathi blow and the deceased Madho Singh fell down on the ground. When Madho Singh came to his house and the accused Jagmal Singh exhorted the appellant to murder Madho Singh. Thereupon the appellant inflicted one lathi blow and the deceased Madho Singh fell down on the ground. According to him, Madho Singh then after having suffered injuries at the hands of appellant, was taken to the dispensary at Hasampur and then to Kotputali and then to S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur. Madho Singh ultimately died at Jaipur on 25.1.1974. He has named Tulsi Mahajan, Ganpat Meena, Ghisa Meena and Chhitar Meena as eye-witnesses of incident. Chhitar P. W. 3. Ghisa P. W. 4, Ganpat P. W. 5 and Tulsiram P. W. 6 have been examined by the prosecution. Chittar P. W. 3 has stated that he was sitting at the shop of Manna Mali and was playing cards. He saw Ramjas Singh going towards the house of Madho Singh. Tulsi Mahajan was running after him. He has further stated that afterwards he saw Ramjas Singh, running away from the house of Madho Singh. When he asked Tulsi as to why he was running after Ramjas Singh, Tulsi informed him that Ramjas Singh was going to quarrel with Madho Singh. It seems that as this witness did not support the case of the prosecution as alleged against Jagmal Singh, he was declared hostile. P. W. 4 Ghisa has stated that he was smoking near the house of Khatik along with Ganpat, when he saw Ramjas Singh appellant running and following Tulsi Mahajan and Cnitar Meena. Ramjas Singh went to the house of Madho Singh, called him out and when Madho Singh came out smoking a 'Chillam' Ishwar Singh also came out of the house followed by Prabhu Singh. Ramjas Singh challenged Madho Singh that if he went to his field, he would be murdered. Madho Singh accepted the challenge and said that why should they wait for the next day, whatever he wanted to do should be done at the moment. Ramjas Singh then inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Madho Singh and thereafter accused.Jagmal Singh appeared on the spot to chatise Ramjas for his act. As this witness also did not support the prosecution case against Jagmal Singh co-accused this witness was also declared hostile, Ganpat P. W. 5 has also stated that he was smoking with Ghisa near the house of Ganpat Master. As this witness also did not support the prosecution case against Jagmal Singh co-accused this witness was also declared hostile, Ganpat P. W. 5 has also stated that he was smoking with Ghisa near the house of Ganpat Master. He did not see Ramjas Singh actually dealing a lathi blow on Madho Singh and he was attentive. His attention was diverted towards the scene when there was alarm. He saw Madho Singh lying on the ground. P. W. 6 Tulsi has deposed that on the relevant evening be was passing by the Narsingh's temple when Jagmal Singh informed him that Ramjas Singh was annoyed with Madho Singh and he should go to pacify him. Tulsi went to the house of Madho Singh followed by Jagmal Singh and Chhitar. He found Ramjas appellant calling Madbo Singh to come out of his house. Madho Singh, Ishwar Singh and Prabhu Singh came out of the house, Ramjas Singh dealt a lathi blow on the head of Madho Singh whereupon Madho Singh fell down. Witness then left the spot. 6. P.W. 10 Prabhu Singh is another eye-witness of the incident. He has stated that Ramjas Singh called Madho Singh to come out of his house. Madho Singh came out. Ishwar Singh and this witness also came out of the house. Ramjas Singh dealt a lathi blow on the head of Madho Singh and Madho Singh fell down. P.W. 7 Dr. Narendra Mehta is the Medical officer who performed the autopsy on the dead body of Madho Singh. He also examined Madho Singh on 18-1-1974 when he was brought to the S. M. S. Hospital in an injured and unconscious condition. Madho Singh was unconscious and under shock, he could not be thoroughly examined. Autopsy performed on 25-1-1974 on the dead body of Madho Singh revealed that the cause of death was shock and come as a result of injury to the brain. He has prepared postmortem report Ex. P. 8. Injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature P. W. 8 is doctor Gupta of the Hasampur Dispensary where Madho Singh was brought for medical treatment on 17-1-1974. He found Madbo Singh unconscious and bleeding from his mouth and nose. He referred the patient to S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur. In the way Madho Singh was shown to Dr. Kalyanmal Gupta at Kothputli Dispensary. 7. He found Madbo Singh unconscious and bleeding from his mouth and nose. He referred the patient to S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur. In the way Madho Singh was shown to Dr. Kalyanmal Gupta at Kothputli Dispensary. 7. P.W. 11 Dr. Ratanlal Mathur has deposed that he x-rayed the skull of Madho Singh on the requisition of Medical Jurist, S. MT. S. Hospital, Jaipur concerned. X-ray plates are Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 12. He found that there were fractures of right fronto-parietal region. He prepared the report which is Ex. P. 10 Ramhet Singh P. W. 12 was posted as Head Constable at the Police Outpost, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. On the information furnished by one Umraomal Compounder about the admission of Madho Singh in the hospital in an injured condition, he went to the S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur where he found Madho Singh unconscious and unable to give any statement. His statement could not, therefore, be recorded. On 25-1-74 when Madho Singh died he prepared the inquest report Ex. P. 2. Amar Singh P. W. 13 is the nephew of Madho Singh. He has stated that he was informed about the incident by Ishwar Singh who also asked him to go to the police station and report the matter. Ex. P. 1 was scribed by him which was given to Jai Singh to deliver it at the police station. Shri Brij Ballabh P. W. 14 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has prepared, the site plan and arrested the appellant. The appellant, while in police custody, furnished information about the concealment of the lathi. This information was reduced into writing which is Ex. P. 18 and in pursuance of that information lathi Art. 1 was recovered and the recovery memo for the same Ex. P. 7 was prepared by him. Blood stained clothes of the deceased Art. 2 and 3 were also seized wide seizure memo Ex. P. 19.Thus, this is in nut-shell, the prosecution evidence by which the prosecution has tried to establish the guilt of the appellant. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that there Is no reliable evidence against the appellant to prove his guilt and as appellant such the deserves acquittal. According to him, there are very glaring infirmities in the prosecution.case which demolishes the prosecution story. 9. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that there Is no reliable evidence against the appellant to prove his guilt and as appellant such the deserves acquittal. According to him, there are very glaring infirmities in the prosecution.case which demolishes the prosecution story. 9. His first contention is that the alleged incident took place on 17.1.1974 while report in the police was lodged as late as on 24.1.1974, and there is no satisfactory explanation by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution. In the circumstances of the case this inordinate delay casts a great doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case and it strengthens the fact that the appellant has been falsely implicated out of anmity for the murder of Madho Singh. The death of Madho Singh might have been due to some reason other then the act of the appellant. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is that though there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report but it is not fatal to the prosecution case and the delay has been explained as the injured Madho Singh was in a precarious condition and all the available relatives had been attending on him at Jaipur and therefore when Jai Singh came from Khokar he was sent for lodging the report. He had relied upon Atmaduddin v. The State of U. P. In this case the first Information report was lodged at different police stations and was subsequently despatched to the Police Station within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. In the circumstances the delay in reaching of the first information report to the concerned police station was held to be inevitable. This ruling relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is Dalip Singh and others v. The State of Punjab . In this case the report was lodged to the police 61/2 hours after the occurrence. The murderous assault was made at a 12 miles from the Police Station. The victims did not die at once. In view that informants' first thoughts would have been to attend victims and also that she had to cover distance to the police station partly on foot and partly by lorry, a report made to the police 61/2 hours after occurrence was held to be not delayed. The victims did not die at once. In view that informants' first thoughts would have been to attend victims and also that she had to cover distance to the police station partly on foot and partly by lorry, a report made to the police 61/2 hours after occurrence was held to be not delayed. In the present case before us the delay is of a week and the distance from the place of occurrence to the police station is hardly about 6 miles and there were other attendants attending on the victim. The above cited ruling does not also go much to help the prosecution. 10. It may be said that whether the delay in lodging the first information report throws a cloud of suspicion on the prosecution case or not, would depend upon the variety of factors even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused. On the other hand prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. A common sense view has to be taken in ascertaining whether the first information report was lodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough scope for manipulating evidence. This principle has been well pointed out by the Supreme Court in Ram Jag and others v. The State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 606 . It has been held in Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 that the first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be over-estimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits, and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. In that case it was considered to be unsafe to base the conviction upon the evidence when the occurrence was not reported for more than 20 hours after the occurrence even though, the police station was only 2 miles from the place of occurrence, 11. The information which is recorded as the first information report at the police station being the very first information report which is received by the police Authorities of the commission of an offence is an important piece of evidence in a case against the accused for the purposes of testing the evidentiary value of evidence given in a court by the person who has given the first information and the other prosecution witnesses and the Court has to carefully scrutinise the document to see whether it corroborates the prosecution case in material particulars of whether it contradicts the evidence of the informant or whether it discloses that in course of such evidence improvements and additions are made in the version of the incident which is given in court. 12. However, it depends upon a variety of factors in each case whether the delay in lodging the first information report throws cloud of suspicion on the prosecution case or not and no hard and fast rule applicable to the facts and circumstances of every case can be laid down. So far the explanation for delay in the present case is concerned it can be said that there is no plausible explanation for inordinate delay in lodging the first information report when there were other persons available who could have lodged the report even though some near relatives might be in attendance. Madho Singh became unconscious from the very beginning. Ishwar Singh was attending to him at Jaipur. Jai Singh also came after about two days of the occurrence to his village then he went to Jaipur. He was not asked to lodge the report in between this time. Madho Singh became unconscious from the very beginning. Ishwar Singh was attending to him at Jaipur. Jai Singh also came after about two days of the occurrence to his village then he went to Jaipur. He was not asked to lodge the report in between this time. Moreover, Mahavir son of Madho Singh and Amar Singh son of Ishwar Singh were also there. Any one could have been asked to go to the police and report the matter and that could have been done even at Jaipur. There were also other witnesses in the village when the occurrence took place. It cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be said that none of them had opportunity of time to inform the police either at the police station Patna or at any police station at Jaipur. In the circumstance prima facie the delay in itself in lodging the report casts clouds of suspicion on the prosecution case and we would presently examine the other factors and circumstances of the case which would go to further strengthen our suspicion in this regard. In the cross-examination of some of the prosecution witnesses it was suggested by the accused that the occurrence might have taken place some where else. It may be possible that they might not be in the knowledge how Madho Singh got injured and they waited to know his version of the occurrence if he comes to senses. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, that there was inordinate delay which has remained not satisfactorily explained and it casts a cloud of suspicion on the prosecution case, particularly when the parties are on inimical terms, is not without force. 13. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution witnesses are wholly unreliable. The alleged eye-witnesses Ishwar Singh and Prabhu Singh are on inimical terms with the appellant and the alleged other eye-witnesses are false and concocted. Tulsi Ram P. W. 6 who is said to be the eye-witness is also not reliable. There are contradictions, improvements and additions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as to the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place and the part played by the accused. Tulsi Ram P. W. 6 who is said to be the eye-witness is also not reliable. There are contradictions, improvements and additions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as to the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place and the part played by the accused. These witnesses have been disbelieved by the trial Judge so far as the alleged role assigned to Jagmjl Singh, another co-accused is concerned and he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution case has therefore to be thrown out against the appellant also. It may be said at the out set that this contention of the learned counsel is not devoid of force. 14. The written report Ex. P./1 on the basis of which the first information report Ex. P/15 was scribed at the police station was written by Amar Singh at the instance of Ishwar Singh P. W. 2, the main eye-witness. Amar Singh P. W. 13 in his statement has stated that this report hag scribed by him as was stated to him by Ishwar Singh. He was further stated that nothing therein was written by him on his own initiative but all was written as was told to him by Ishwar Singh. Thus this report Ex. P/1 can be said to be the first version of Ishwar Singh conveyed to the police. As such the first information report in the present case is extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the oral evidence adduced at the trial. It is an early version regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and part played by them as well as the names of the eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. At the trial the prosecution has put up a case that the alleged incident was occasioned owing to previous enmity between the deceased and the accused. Ishwar Singh P. W. 2 has mentioned that the fields of Madho Singh and Jagmal Singh were adjacent. It was said that a quarrel ensued between Jagmal Singh and Madho Singh and Madho Singh and his son Mabavir and connection with damages to the leaves in the field by the daughters of Madho Singh on the same day. Thereafter in the evening this alleged incident took place. This motive is conspicuously absent in the report Ex. It was said that a quarrel ensued between Jagmal Singh and Madho Singh and Madho Singh and his son Mabavir and connection with damages to the leaves in the field by the daughters of Madho Singh on the same day. Thereafter in the evening this alleged incident took place. This motive is conspicuously absent in the report Ex. P/1 which was got written by Ishwar Singh. Moreover, in Ex. P./1 part played in the occurrence by the appellant as well as his companion Jagmal Singh co-accused has been mentioned. The part assigned to Jagmal Singh in the first information report as well as by Ishwar Singh has been disbelieved by the trial court and Jagmal Singh has been acquitted. This shows that in this report improvement and additions were made. Moreover, the first information report has also mentioned the names of the persons who had seen the occurrence. In this Ex.P/1 the name of Prabhu Singh who is alleged to be the eyewitness and came out of the house along with the deceased and Ishwar Singh at the time of occurrence is conspicuously missing. Prabhu Singh's presence has not been mentioned by Ishwar Singh in his statement before the police in Ex. D.1. Thus there is a serious contradiction in the first information report about the presence of Prabhu Singh who has been produced at the trial as an eye-witness. Besides the first information report Ex. P/1 has also mentioned the names of the persons who had witnessed the occurrence. Tulsi Ram is said to be present from the very beginning as he was following the accused came to the house of Madho Singh but the ether persons besides Tulsi Ram who have been named as eye-witnesses who have assembled at the scene of occurrence as soon as the alarm was raised, are Sheodan Khatia Ramniwas, Vishnu Singh. It is really strange that these witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution. On the other hand witnesses namely Chbitarmal P. W. 3, Ghisa P. W. 4 and Ganpat P. W. 5 have been produced as eye-witnesses of the occurrence but strangely enough their names do not appear in the first information report Ex. P/1. The omission of the names of these witnesses in the first information report and non-examination of the witnesses Sheodan Khatik, Ramniwas, and Vishnu Singh casts great suspicion on the prosecution case. P/1. The omission of the names of these witnesses in the first information report and non-examination of the witnesses Sheodan Khatik, Ramniwas, and Vishnu Singh casts great suspicion on the prosecution case. Therefore, the presence of the witnesses Chhitar, Ghisa and Ganpat at the time of occurrence becomes highly doubtful particularly when these witnesses have been declared hostile and there are serious contradictions in the statements of these witnesses. Ishwar Singh is no doubt the near relation-brother of the deceased, and when other witnesses who could have been produced to corroborate his testimony, were available i.e. Sheodan, Ramniwas, and Vishnu Singh whose names find place in the first information report, it was rather necessary for the prosecution to have examined these witnesses. It is true that the prosecution is not bound to examine all the witnesses of the occurrence. But it is however, bound to examine all material witnesses whose evidence is essential to the unfolding of the narrative of the events on which its case is based, and this is particularly so when it is not alleged that he is not a witness of truth. If a witness is material by the application of the above test, he must be examined even when the prosecution apprehends that his evidence will not be favourable to the prosecution. If a material witness is not examined and the prosecution has no satisfactory explanation to offer for his being withheld, the accused is entitled to ask the Court to draw the inference under section 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, that if produced the evidence of that witness would be unfavourable to the prosecution. Not only that, but further, such circumstance casts a serious reflection on the fairness of the trial, and if the appellant court is satisfied that such omission has caused a prejudice to the accused, the conviction, must be set aside, ( Habeeb Mohammed v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1953 SC 51 ). As stated in the first information report both the accused ran away when Sheodan, Ramniwas and Vishnu Singh, appeared at the scene- of occurrence. Thus, these witnesses must have seen the accused at the place of occurrence when they themselves reached at that place and they could have deposed to the effect and would have corroborated the prosecution story to much extent. Thus, these witnesses must have seen the accused at the place of occurrence when they themselves reached at that place and they could have deposed to the effect and would have corroborated the prosecution story to much extent. In the circumstances the court is entitled to consider the value of evidence produced by the prosecution in the light of such criticism as may be levelled for it by the accused on the strength of absence of possible witnesses, unless the prosecution can satisfy the court that the absent witness was not material or could not be produced for some reason not born of default of the prosecution. In the present case the prosecution has not given any reason for not examining these witnesses and it cannot be also said in the facts and circumstance of the case that they are not material witnesses. The non examination of Sheodan, Ramniwas and Vishnu Singh whose names appear in the first information report entitles the court to draw an inference adverse to the prosecution that if examined they would not have been favourable to the prosecution case. 15. There are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also the statement Ishwar Singh eye-witnesses is contradicted by the version given in the first information report, so far as part played by the accused Jagmal Singh is concerned. While dealing with the case of Jagmal Singh, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has given detailed extracts of the state ments of various witnesses on this point. He has also been of the opinion that there are serious contradictions in this regard and the benefit of the contradictory statements must go to accused. In the prosecution case there versions so far as the part played by co-accused Jagmal Singh is concerned. First version was as mentioned in the first information report that he caught hold of Madho Singh and/Ramjas Singh inflicted lathi blow. The second version as given by Ishwar Singh was that he exhorted' Ramjas Singh to strike Tulsiram that Jagmal Singh did not say any thing and he wanted that the incident should be averted. Tulsiram stated that he was requested by Jagmal Singh to specify Ramjas Singh so that he may not quarrel with Madho Singh. This version is supported by the statement of Ghisa P. W. 4. The learned Addl. Tulsiram stated that he was requested by Jagmal Singh to specify Ramjas Singh so that he may not quarrel with Madho Singh. This version is supported by the statement of Ghisa P. W. 4. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge held the case of the prosecution doubtful so far as Jagmal Singh was concerned. But the matter does not rest here. These major contradictions and changes in the versions as to the part played by co-accused in the quarrel not only effects the veracity of the prosecution witnesses so far as Jagmal Singh alone is concerned but it strike the very texture of the prosecution case and makes the whole case of prosecution doubtful. 16. We may further examine the veracity of the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Ganpat, Chhitar and Ghisa who have been produced as eye-witnesses. Their testimony cannot be held to be reliable against the appellant as to base his conviction thereon. As pointed out above their names do not appear in the first information report while the names of different persons who arrived at the scene of occurrence appear therein. Moreover, these witnesses have been declared hostile, and cannot be said to be wholly reliable. The statement of Tulsiram also does not support the prosecution case. So far as part played by Jagmal Singh was concerned. His statement to some extent contradicts the statements of Ishwar Singh on material particulars. Ishwar Singh who is near relation of the deceased is on inimical terms with the appellant as there have been previous enmity on the matter of causing fracture of the hand of Madho Singh by Jagmal Singh who was the co-accused in the case. There are contradictions and improvements and additions in the the statements of Ishwar Singh as given before the court and as given before the police in Ex.D.l. and Ex.D.2. These witnesses therefore, cannot be said to be reliable the prosecution witness deliberately perjuring himself in one part of the evidence rest of his evidence should be accepted if corroborated by probabilities and other reliable evidence. These witnesses therefore, cannot be said to be reliable the prosecution witness deliberately perjuring himself in one part of the evidence rest of his evidence should be accepted if corroborated by probabilities and other reliable evidence. The maximum 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is of course is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions of this country but nonetheless it is the duty of the court in the case where a witness is found to have given an unreliable-evidence in regard to certain particulars to scrutinise his evidence with care and caution. The correct rule to apply in such cases is that part of the evidence of a witness, who has been guilty of untruth In some material particulars, may be accepted if such part is corroborated by probabilities and other reliable evidence. There are material contradictions, improvements and additions in the prosecution story which cast doubt about the complicity of the appellant. Keeping in view all these infirmities, the delay of a week in lodging of the report in police also assume much importance and it also raises considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence as would make it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused-appellant upon it. 17. Looking to all the circumstances, we are of the view that it is not possible to sustain the conviction of the accused on evidence adduced. We accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant Ramjas Singh and acquit him. The appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. *******